March 18, 2010

BAIER: You have said at least four times in the past two weeks: "the United States Congress owes the American people a final up or down vote on health care." So do you support the use of this Slaughter rule? The deem and pass rule, so that Democrats avoid a straight up or down vote on the Senate bill?

OBAMA: Here's what I think is going to happen and what should happen. You now have a proposal from me that will be in legislation, that has the toughest insurance reforms in history, makes sure that people are able to get insurance even if they've got preexisting conditions, makes sure that we are reducing costs for families and small businesses, by allowing them to buy into a pool, the same kind of pool that members of Congress have.

So far, nothing but nonresponsive filler.

We know that this is going to reduce the deficit by over a trillion dollars. So you've got a good package, in terms of substance. I don't spend a lot of time worrying about what the procedural rules are in the House or the Senate.

I don't care how much time he spends on it or whether the time he spends is spent worrying (or dithering or fretting or musing or calmly analyzing). The question is: Does he support it? If he means to say I have no position on the proposed procedural moves, then that's the answer. Say it!

(CROSS TALK)

OBAMA: What I can tell you is that the vote that's taken in the House will be a vote for health care reform. And if people vote yes, whatever form that takes, that is going to be a vote for health care reform. And I don't think we should pretend otherwise.

(CROSS TALK)

OBAMA: Bret, let me finish.

Let you finish obfuscating? This is all very Anne Elk ("Well, you may well ask what is my theory... you may well ask what it is, this theory of mine, well, this theory, that I have, that is to say, which is mine,... is mine.") So there will be a vote, but what kind of vote? Obama falls back on assertions that the bill will pass. Based on the current whip count, it looks like it won't, but he boldly characterizes those who are predicting failure as the pretenders. (He is The Great Pretender.)

If they don't, if they vote against, then they're going to be voting against health care reform and they're going to be voting in favor of the status quo. So Washington gets very concerned about these procedural issues in Congress. This is always an issue that's — whether Republicans are in charge or Democrats in charge — when Republicans are in charge, Democrats constantly complain that the majority was not giving them an opportunity, et cetera.

Yeah. Et cetera, indeed. As if procedure is a frivolous sidetrack that only trivial or devious people care about. Barack Obama was a constitutional law professor. Much of constitutional law is about procedural rights and structural safeguards that check power. Justice Felix Frankfurter famously wrote: "The history of American freedom is, in no small measure, the history of procedure." Law professors are seriously engaging with the constitutionality of the "deem and pass," and our erstwhile law professor Barack Obama would imperiously wave procedure aside as a distraction not worthy of his time. Let's concentrate on the end and pay no attention to the means. When the most powerful man in the world says that, we should feel revulsion and alarm.

BAIER: Let me insert this. We asked our viewers to e-mail in suggested questions. More than 18,000 people took time to e-mail us questions. These are regular people from all over the country. Lee Johnson, from Spring Valley, California: "If the bill is so good for all of us, why all the intimidation, arm twisting, seedy deals, and parliamentary trickery necessary to pass a bill, when you have an overwhelming majority in both houses and the presidency?"

Sandy Moody in Chesterfield, Missouri: "If the health care bill is so wonderful, why do you have to bribe Congress to pass it?"

OBAMA: Bret, I get 40,000 letters or e-mails a day.

Ha! He won't answer the people's questions, because there are just so darned many people, and the questions they ask are so annoying. And Bret got 18,000 emails but Obama got 40,000 pieces of mail a day, so Obama's male mail is bigger than Bret's.

BAIER: I know.

OBAMA: I could read the exact same e-mail —

BAIER: These are people. It's not just Washington punditry.

Good short jab by Baier.

OBAMA: I've got the exact same e-mails, that I could show you, that talk about why haven't we done something to make sure that I, a small business person, am getting as good a deal as members of Congress are getting, and don't have my insurance rates jacked up 40 percent? Why is it that I, a mother with a child with a preexisting condition, still can't get insurance?

So the issue that I'm concerned about is whether not we're fixing a broken system.

BAIER: OK, back to the original question.

Yes, the question is the procedural device (and why you need it if the bill is as good as you say).

OBAMA: The key is to make sure that we vote — we have a vote on whether or not we're going to maintain the status quo, or whether we're going to reform the system.

Why not a straight vote — a normal vote — a transparent vote — a vote people can understand? Why make it seem that you are pulling a fast one? And right now, in this interview, you seem to be pulling a fast one about pulling a fast one.

BAIER: So you support the deem and pass rule?

OBAMA: I am not —

BAIER: You're saying that's that vote.

OBAMA: What I'm saying is whatever they end up voting on — and I hope it's going to be sometime this week — that it is going to be a vote for or against my health care proposal. That's what matters. That's what ultimately people are going to judge this on.

And so Bret Baier never gets an answer to that question. Barack Obama — who acted like he didn't want to waste his time on the deem and pass — wasted our time evading the questions about the deem and pass. His aim is to put us to sleep. We may be asking questions about the procedure now, but eventually we'll let it go and ultimately we will look at the substance what we got and decide whether we like it. So quiet down and wait, the most powerful man in the world tells us. He knows what's good for us. Don't look while he prepares the medicine that will make you very very happy.

I am no fan of Obama or this bill--in my view, real health care or health insurance reform requires the eradication of the insurance industry from the delivery of health care...in other words, I'm for single payer--but this "reporter" is a tool. Rather than ask substantive questions about the bill and its provisions, he wants to play "gotcha" regarding procedural matters.

Hint to reporter: this is how laws are made: through backroom deals, arm-twisting, promises of quid pro quo, etc. This is hardly a gentlemen's polite cocktail debate and it never has been.

I think this is a bad bill that will be a huge gift to the insurance industry, further enriching them at our expense, and I don't think it should pass. Obama has blown it by inviting the insurance companies to participate as if they were decent or honorable actors. They are not; they are swine, and we need to approach this issue with the assumption that they, as are the financial industries, are essentially criminal enterprises that must be held in check.

When the most powerful man in the world says that, we should feel revulsion and alarm.

(channeling my inner Inigo Montoya): There's that phrase again. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Just an aside, but is the POTUS really the most powerful man in the world anymore? Is the POTUS reall the leader of the free world anymore? And I'm not talking about Obama specifically. Any US President.

I heard this exchange as it happened yesterday regarding the emails and numbers. When Baier asked that question, I was actually on the edge of the seat waiting for the great communicator to answer it. Instead, he whipped out his ep33n to make sure everyone knew his was bigger. Complete non-answer. Out of the entire interview, this is the question that pissed me off the most.

The predictable fallout today from media outlets that didn't score a one-on-one interview with the president mainly criticized Baier for interrupting. As if that's not happened in the past in presidential interviews, sometimes by members of those same outlets.

President Obama should win a Tony for that wonderful and perplexing dance number he did during this exchange.

CBO sez it will save 130 billion over the first 10 yrs, and 1.2 trillion in the next 10. Democrats could have made their life a lot easier if they just bypassed making it revenue neutral and thrown it all on the deficit like Repubs did with Medicare Part D, and the two tax cuts. It seemed so easy back then.

Make no mistake about it people - what you are seeing is a bloodless coup against the United States of America.

The Democrat Party, having failed to convince our representatives to vote for their proposals, is now going to "deem" them passed and begin implementing them - against the will of the people's representatives in the Congress.

That is a coup d' etat.

Several of our government officials - notably the Speaker of the House of Representatives - appear to have lost their minds and are out of control.

Barack Obama is the head of the Executive branch of our government. He is in charge of and took an oath to defend the Constitution. Now, he will not say if he will do so.

If he won't do that, if he won't stop the Legislative Branch from this illegal violation of their power - then we have no further use of Barack Obama nor the Presidency and we should be moving to replace these guards of our security.

The obvious comment...after all, Obama took the coward's way out and voted "present" multiple times in the IL Senate. He really doesn't like having to make hard decisions. He's much more comfortable saying, "well, on the one hand, blah blah blah...and on the other hand, blah blah blah".

News Flash: Steny Hoyer announces that the Health Care Bill will cut the deficit by $100B in its first 10 years (that's 10 years of funding for 6 years of outlays), then cut the deficit by $1 Trillion in its second 10 years.

So apparently, the death panels don't kick in until the second decade.

Let's pass that sucker!

* * *

Hint to Robert Cook: The way bad laws are stopped are by embarrassing the crooks who manage the backroom deals and the stooges who get their arms twisted. Which is what the reporter is doing -- embarrassing a stooge. You need to work on your cynicism.

""We don't need no Constitution. I don't have to show you any adherence to the Constitution!"

Obama the federale."

How scary is it that this POTUS, a Constitutional scholar, cares little for the US Constitution? He said before the election that the Constitution is "flawed" and prevents some of his agenda. Well it's flawed because it bars him from being POTUS. His father was NEVER a citizen, thus he is not a Natural Born Citizen (neither was McCain, born in Colon, Panama), and the Progressives keep whittling away at the Constitution they hate. They hate it because it defines the limits of Government power over we the people. Obama is EXACTLY the type of "Citizen of the World" that the founders would have prevented from the office. He has shown that he has neaither the allegiance or attachment to country that is the Natural Born citizen requirement's purpose.

How dumb do the Dems think we are? It takes 10 yrs of taxes with only 6 yrs of expenses to hit 132B in savings...but those savings will increase by over 900% when you have 10 yrs of expenditures for 10 yrs of taxes?

Really? I'm insulted that somebody so either idiotic or bad at lying is in such a high position.

Garage, you beat me to the news flash. But face it, that $1.2 Trillion number is sheer invention. It's the projection of the generals who thought they would win WWI in a month. It's so laughably outside the bounds of historical evidence as to discredit anyone who parrots it.

Now it could be we'll have a huge inflationary cycle starting in 2020. That will save the government trillions of dollars. I doubt that's the premise the CBO is forced to work with, but it's more realistic than any of the savings and revenue assumptions the Democrats pretend to believe.

House Budget Committee Ranking Republican Paul Ryan responds to an NRO query about the news this morning: “The Congressional Budget Office has confirmed that there is currently no official cost estimate. Yet House Democrats are touting to the press — and spinning for partisan gain — numbers that have not been released and are impossible to confirm. Rep. James Clyburn stated he was 'giddy' about these unsubstantiated numbers. This is the latest outrageous exploitation by the Majority — in this case abusing the confidentiality of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office — to pass their massive health care overhaul at any cost.”

Fred is correct. It's all about the O. Even the true believers realize what a failure he has been so far. They figure a loss on this would be the final nail in his presidency. It has nothing to do with health care. Lefties would be fighting this tooth and nail if McCain had proposed it.

The process is indicative of the substance. That such contortions are necessary just to eke out a bare majority demonstrates that the President and Democratic leaders have not made the sale. But they want to force us buy it anyway.

With liberals, the ends justify the means. Obama's problem is that he hasn't found a way to stop the next election, thus the same violation of procedures will be used by the opposition party in the future.

in my view, real health care or health insurance reform requires the eradication of the insurance industry from the delivery of health care

Got some news for ya Cookie. The only 1st world country that has eradicated insurance companies from health care is Britain with the NHS and its a disaster. Those two 'models of health care systems' France and Germany, both use private insurers to a pretty big extent.

Garage -- Yes and No. Yes, I'd like to new programs to pay for themselves. There's no question that disgust with Republican fiscal folly is part of the reason we have the current Democratic majorities.

But huge new entitlements never pay for themselves, no matter how many new taxes are created and what gimmicks are applied.

So given the Hobson's choice between a medium-sized new entitlement that isn't paid for (Medicare Part D, for example) and a huge entitlement that is paid for with promises and wishful thinking (the current Health Care Bill), I'll take the former.

The government always seems to find a way to raise taxes. It never finds a way to roll back entitlements.

As a small business person all I can say is that Obama has a lot of nerve. I have looked at his plan and there is a very real chance I will have to shut down and let 17 workers go. Maybe I can come up with some sort of dodge by splitting the company into two separate entities. My employees like their jobs. We have never had to lay anyone off in 15 years because we have been frugal and careful. But the writing is on the wall when the government is waging war on you.

I will be OK but my employees need those jobs.

It is this sort of BS that leads to high systemic unemployment like we see in Europe.

Oh, and Obama knows about as much about the Constitution as my Labrador Retriever knows about particle physics. Even his title was senior lecturer or some such happy horse shit. Constitutional law professor is something he has never been and never could be. Didn't he and his wife even have to give up their licenses to practice?

"How scary is it that this POTUS, a Constitutional scholar, cares little for the US Constitution? He said before the election that the Constitution is "flawed" and prevents some of his agenda."

Good point.

Were you also scared that Bush scorned the Constitution as just a "god-damned piece of paper?" And that he treated it as such in his approach to governance?

When you cheer autocratic behavior in someone you favor, you can't be surprised when someone you don't favor runs with the same, uh, "robust Presidential power" as was justified for your favorite son by his lawyers and apologists in the media.

Of course, Obama is hardly being autocratic or, ahem, tyrannical in the matter of the health care bill; he's advocating strongly for a bill he wants passed, and it may or may not pass. If it doesn't, he'll have to live with it. As for the fake "controversy" regarding procedural issues, they are accepted Congressional procedures and have been used by both parties over time.

You know, I've never understood why a journalist (is that what Bert Baier is) just doesn't come out and say: You've done a great job of dancing around the question, giving me talking points, and in general being a politician. Now can you answer the question I asked?

Garage, I'll add that for fiscal conservatives, every election is a Hobson's choice. You can vote for the party that claims to be prudent, knowing they aren't. Or you can vote for the party that constantly demonizes the imprudent prudent party for slashing programs.

During the years of Republican folly it was nice to believe that the other party would do better.

What the Democratic majority has proved is what fiscal conservatives have known all along. The wasteful, imprudent, foolish Republicans are pikers when it comes to waste, imprudence and foolishness. The Democrats have that market cornered.

The best one can do is vote for a split between the Executive and the Legislature.

Our President is a simple con-man. He enjoys the thrill of lying to the rubes until they do not know which way is up. He really enjoys that. It is rare that such a man gets into any responsible position because he makes so many enemies among his own support group by constantly lying about everything. This dude has made it look easy to live by lying. The only question is how much damage he can do before his own supporters rise up and dump him. Scot Brown's election was the beginning of that uprising. Professor Althouse has risen up against him too.

"Hint to reporter: this is how laws are made: through backroom deals, arm-twisting, promises of quid pro quo, etc. This is hardly a gentlemen's polite cocktail debate and it never has been."

Hint to Robert Cook: I find it very relevant to have the President take a position on a possibly unconstitutional effort to ram a huge bill through. Weird that you think that is a "gotcha" question. And if other reporters refuse to do their jobs and ask those questions, then we are stuck with your backroom deals, arm-twisting, promises of quid pro quo, etc.

"You would have to agree it's a much more fiscally sound way to implement a program compared to the way Republicans threw everything on the deficit, I hope?"Beats me Garage. What was the deficit in 2006 and what is it today?

So what that the Constitution is all about procedural rules? His will be done. Period.

No need to actually vote on and pass things.

No need to actually have any specific language in an actual bill -- even if there is a vote, all that is needed is a vote on some vague amorphous bumper sticker idea like "health care." Who needs real laws when you have some tyrant who is going to do whatever hell he wants no matter what?

HenryThe choice for me is knowing "the money" is going to be spent regardless who is in office. The last president to actually balance the budget was a Democrat. What and where it goes to is the choice. Wars and tax cuts, or invested domestically.

Where has been the outrage over the last many decades over the manner by which bills are made and passed?

Depends on the bill being passed. Procedural loops are one thing when we're talking nickle and dime stuff but when you're talking about restructuring 1/6 of the national economy and how our health care will be handled in the future, it starts looking like a usurpation of power.

"Were you also scared that Bush scorned the Constitution as just a "god-damned piece of paper?" And that he treated it as such in his approach to governance?

When you cheer autocratic behavior in someone you favor, you can't be surprised when someone you don't favor runs with the same, uh, "robust Presidential power" as was justified for your favorite son by his lawyers and apologists in the media."

1. the source for this story is notoriously unreliable. And his version is based on anonymous sources who may or may not exist.

As for the fake "controversy" regarding procedural issues, they are accepted Congressional procedures and have been used by both parties over time.

How, exactly, can a "controversy" be fake? It can be overblown, a tempest in a teapot, etc, but the controversy in question is very real.

As far as both parties using it, okay...I'll bite and I'd expect a much better-reasoned response to my question that garage gave yesterday. Mostly because he failed to answer it, but credit where credit is due.

Please point to an instance this slight of hand was a) used by the GOP completely vacant of any bipartisan support from the other side of the isle, b) a GOP president, and c) involving comprehensive legislation.

I'm willing to soak up knowledge like a sponge on this one. Please pour some over me.

Is it possible that the reason Obama didn't answer Bret Baier is because he doesn't personally understand deem and pass? I mean, he really was only a US senator for a little more than a year -- two tops -- before he started campaigning full time. Maybe he was afraid that if he answered Mr. Baier there'd be a follow-up question that he couldn't answer?

Your link didn't work, but I found what I think is the page you were referring me to. It does not successfully refute the factual basis of the quote, but merely expresses skepticism and raises legitimate questions about it...which is fair enough.

However, given that Bush certainly governed as if his regard for the Constitution was nil--waging illegal war based on lies, instituting a torture regime, etc.--we must certainly consider that the quote may very well be accurate, and if it was not, we are left with the substance of Bush's actions, which should certainly terrify and anger all the good Constitutionalists fretting here today about Obama's abuse of power, (and which I agree merits great concern, as it continues the march toward authoritarian rule that we have seen growing in America for many years).

air points, both. Where has been the outrage over the last many decades over the manner by which bills are made and passed?

The most obvious answer is the incredible difference in the amount of available information combined with the internet and the general tech savvy of the population. I'd say we're witnessing an end of an era in American politics, regardless of which way this goes. Of course there will always be shady goings-on, but the more light that's shone, the further back in the rat hole they'll have to go. That's just fine with me.

"How, exactly, can a "controversy" be fake? It can be overblown, a tempest in a teapot, etc, but the controversy in question is very real."

By being fabricated by the media.

Do you really believe a subtantial percentage of the American people even know of, much less care about, these arcane Congressional procedures and whether or not they are legitimate or "controversial?"

"This is not an unconstitutional action. This is an anticonstitutional action."

It is nothing less than a coup d' etat and the destruction of the United States Senate.

The Senate passed a bill that the House proposes to eviscerate and hand to the President.

Our laws are no longer functioning.

And I predict that violence and destruction of property will be the result if the coup plotters in the House of Representatives - namely Nancy Pelosi - implement this illegal and extra-Constitutional ursupation.

Sorry about the faulty link. Here's FactCheck's conclusion about the reported Bush "piece of paper" quote:

"We judge that the odds that the report is accurate hover near zero. It comes from Capitol Hill Blue, a Web site that has a history of relying on phony sources, retracting stories and apologizing to its readers."

He's just dumb. Smooth, but dumb. He cannot depart from his talking points because he does not know what to say.

To Cook - I completely disagree with you - the healthcare industry should be turned into a socialized system, but at least what you propose is coherent (as an Expat Canadian, I also think it is awful). Obamacare (to the extent that such a thing actually exists outside of Nancy Pelosi's botox-ridden brain) is a huge deal giving government "protection" (mob style) to the Insurance Industry, which guarantees them 40mm new clients. It will also have to permit them to raise rates to pay for all their new mandates and obligations (pre-existing conditions, rescission etc). You can demonize the insurance industry all you want, but the fact is their profits (both in terms of margins and net cash) are pretty modest compared to other successful industries. Even assuming we wipe out most or all of those profits, that does not leave nearly enough juice to pay for all the new insurance requirements, so either rates will go up substantially or the insurance companies will quickly be out of business (or some combination of both), at which point Cookie gets his socialized system, which we all know has always been Obama's goal (see links below).

As obscenely large and expensive as this Bill is, it is only the first salvo.

"Do you really believe a subtantial percentage of the American people even know of, much less care about, these arcane Congressional procedures and whether or not they are legitimate or "controversial?"

I am for wars and tax cuts, frankly. The former to help Halliburton and Dick Cheney and the latter to help myself. Anything to keep the poor poor and the streets full of people dying for lack of health insurance. People like Natoma wasting away for free up there in the Cleveland Clinic. Cleveland!! yuch. War for me. Oh, and fuck the poor.

Big Mike and Hoosier are on it--lets understand that Mr Obama was not in the senate long enough to really understand its arcane rules--He has no understanding at all of how the legislative process works and was unable to respond to the substance of the question.

Mr Obama's fate on health care rests with Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid. The man is totally out of his league. The Fox news guy was nice to him and deferred to his position while having to avoid Mr Obama's non-responsiveness.

Mr Obama would not have gone on Fox (whom he vilified) if his shit wasnt in the street--He needed FNC more than FNC needed Mr Obama--they already own the ratings; Mr Obama doesnt.

I should probably note that I am an Obama fan and would have voted for him if I could have.

I say that even knowing what I know now. He is pretty much just what I expected.

I say that as a liberal in the original meaning of the word. A believer in personal liberty and extremely limited government.

We have been going along for the past 50 years, 2 steps forward, 1 back, gradually increasing government. They say that if you heat the water slowly enough, you can boil a frog without it jumping out of the pot. That is what has been happening with us.

Suppose we had gotten McCain. It might have taken another 10 years to get where Obama is taking us but we would have gotten there just the same.

I like Obama because he has gotten people riled up about a lot of things. Would we have had the TEA parties without him? Perhaps, in reaction to him, the American people will finally get off their collective duffs, realize the danger to out democracy and bring us back to the Constitution.

Bush didn't do it, Clinton wouldn't do it, Reagan couldn't do it.

Maybe Obama can, even if that is not his intention.

Lenin famously said: "Worse is better" meaning the worse the Czars treated the people, the easier it would be for the revolution to succeed.

I am here cheering this car wreck that is the Obama administration on.

We need to get rid of ALL pols from both parties and start fresh.

In November, vote against all incumbents, from both parties. In Primary season, regardless of your party, work to defeat the incumbents.

Robert, I think you like many supporters of this bill underestimate the widespread, guttural opposition to this bill and, in particular, this method. Yesterday in our warehouse break room, where I'm accustomed to hearing almost exclusively about sports and weather, I instead heard "Democrats have gone too far", "completely out of touch", and even "blood in the streets".

Do you really believe a subtantial percentage of the American people even know of, much less care about, these arcane Congressional procedures and whether or not they are legitimate or "controversial?"

Whether they care about the means, they certainly care about the ends. People don’t want this bill to pass…even democrats who voted for Obama. If it passes without a real vote, people are going to be pissed.

Nobody would bet a dime that cost estimates of such a program would actually be close to eventual real cost. It has never happened... ever, not even close! But, it's like all the people who took out mortgages they could not afford listening in their heads to all the positive side fantasy and ignoring the facts of life. When you want something, no matter how out of reach, the mind is a great facilitator to disaster.

'it turns out that a perfectly creased pants leg was not a sign that “he’ll be a very good president"...Maybe the rubes understand Obama fairly well, after all. They figured out quite some time ago that the entire campaign message — change, hope, post-partisanship, nonideological, fiscally sober — was a ruse. And they understand how immoderate both his methods and his aims are.'

RobertCook,I don't know if you follow the conservative movement, but we are not wild about Bush. He basically was a flaming liberal, even as governor of Texas. The only thing he really had going for him was that he wasn't Gore or Kerry. Thank God neither of those two got in the office!!

As a doctor, I can assure you that the American people deserve socialized medicine. You have all complained and carried on for over 40 years about the system that we have and passed as many laws and regulations as possible to make our lives miserable, it is time you got your own. The problem is that you don't understand what socialized medicine means. It is you who are socialized. If you want a good look at the coming system, go to Cook county, Big Charity in NO, LSU in Shreveport. In fact any large city has a public hospital, go look and see the dirt, lines, wait, anger, misery, and incompetence. Consider the cost of a doctor when we finally form a union. Get used to the phrase "that is not in my job description". You see, the reason that doctors don't feel this is a good idea is that we train in public hospitals and know what happens. O, also get used to the fact your dollar will be useless, except as wipping material.

Actually, I didn't SAY you supported the bill, I just said you shared a view about public opinion with many supporters of the bill. And that I, myself, have been surprised to see energetic contradiction to that view...

I support single payer and the removal of insurance companies from the health care system. This bill is a gift to the insurance companies, one they eagerly welcome if it passes.

Whereas a single payer system is a gift to the government since it creates a 300 million person dependency upon their good graces.

See the thing about this is it isn't about health care but about expanding the power and scope of government in our daily lives. Cookie is the definition of irony in that he decries a 'toture regime government' yet has zero problems with handing the government even more power over our lives in the form of health care.

Some folks will argue that many were opposed to Medicare at the time but its oh so popular now. No shit, since when is giving something of value for next to nothing unpopular with the recipients? I have no doubt that 5-10 years down the road once the taxpayer has become numbed to the tax increase we'll be stuck with, the recipients of ObamaCare will say its very popular, especially the ones who won't pay dime one toward it.

But as Greece is now learning the hard way, we're going to be right behind them when the recipients of such generous government largess start running out of other people's money to pay for it all.

Is there not one advisor in the WH with the guts to tell the President that he's a horrible liar? Watching him haughtily deny or ignore reality has grown tiresome to all but his most rabid fans.Everyone else sees that the gamble on this tyro was a complete bust, and that there's no rabbit to be pulled from his hat. He'll never get the unemployment or deficit numbers down to their Bush-era levels and he knows it. So all he's got left is more of the fluff, fiction and farce that we've all grown used to (and sick of). One positive note. If "deem and pass" is going to be Obama's legacy, I think history will treat him with the contempt he deserves.

Those who say it's all about Barry's ego are partly right. He is possibly the vainest human being alive, Hollyweird included. The other part is the fact that Mommy was a commie and a string of people like Saul Alinsky and William Ayers were his foster fathers. This thing, which is being massaged by the CBO to produce the talking points with which garage will bombard us about what a money-saver it is, will break this country and is intended as the first step to single payer since they can't get enough people to sign on to it now.

It will also assure that, when the Red Chinese decide to cross the Formosa Straits or some other Communist dictatorship gets land hungry, there will be no effective US military to stop them because all the money will go to BarryCare. Given this administration's takeover of other industries and its intent to take over others (think cap and trade), the Feds would run one third of the American economy. That's National Socialism and, given the methods used to get us there, much of the rest of Germany in the '30s doesn't seem far behind. If Barry and Pelosi Galore can waive the Constitutional requirement for a vote on every bill passed into law, they can waive any other part they want.

Robert Cook said...

...

Hint to reporter: this is how laws are made: through backroom deals, arm-twisting, promises of quid pro quo, etc. This is hardly a gentlemen's polite cocktail debate and it never has been.

You're as wrong about this as everything else. Good laws are created primarily through consensus. Love him or hate him, LBJ was a master of the art and that's how he got the Civil Rights Act passed. Logrolling, jawboning, and other methods are used to get one or two crucial votes sometimes, but good legislation doesn't need the massive bribery and blackmail that this mess has required.

"2. who do you know that cheered this mythical behavior?

All who cheered Bush's fabricated war and applauded his torture regime, who scorned France and other allies of ours for not agreeing to cooperate in our Terror War, etc.

Oh, yes, Jacques Chirac, who sold Saddam all of his high-tech stuff and Gerhard Schroeder, who was elected as an America-hater until the Krauts realized that they might have to provide their own defense if they kept him in office.

And, of course, all those pictures of planes being flown into buildings and people jumping from 100th floor windows were all fabricated in some soundstage in Culver City.

garage mahal said...

CBO sez it will save 130 billion over the first 10 yrs, and 1.2 trillion in the next 10.

CBO is also under the thumb of Pelosi Galore.

The last president to actually balance the budget was a Democrat

No, he was presented with a fait accompli in which the Speaker of the House told him that, if he tried to veto the bill, said Speaker could override it and, after a few weeks of pouting, sulking, Monica, and hoping the press could demagogue him out of it, he signed the budget bill. He never balanced a budget and much of the so-called savings came from cutting the military by 40% because we were 'safe' from then on.

"All who cheered Bush's fabricated war and applauded his torture regime, who scorned France and other allies of ours for not agreeing to cooperate in our Terror War, etc. "

What a chuckle. How is Obama doing in regard to the war? He's continuing to detain suspects at Gitmo, continuing to kill people with drone strikes, attempting to expand domestic surveillance programs, practicing rendition, etc.

Is King Barry a modern war criminal like big bad Bush, or are his war crimes more "nuanced"?I also wonder if Obama loves killing children with those airstrikes as much as Bush supposedly did?

OBAMA: I've got the exact same e-mails, that I could show you, that talk about why haven't we done something to make sure that I, a small business person, am getting as good a deal as members of Congress are getting, and don't have my insurance rates jacked up 40 percent? Why is it that I, a mother with a child with a preexisting condition, still can't get insurance?

I am a mother with a child with a preexisting condition. When my then husband and I decided to move back to Illinois from Vermont for better job prospects, we had to get private insurance to cover us while we were looking for a new job (we were living with my parents at the time). My daughter has a developmental delay, a moderate hearing impairment, and epilepsy. We could get insurance for the family. Because of her preexisting conditions, she would be covered for all except those for a year. Then she would be covered for the preexisting conditions. So this canard of not being able to be insured at all if one has a preexisting condition is just that, a canard. People can also be covered for a preexisting condition before any waiting period (as above) by paying a higher premium.

CBO sez it will save 130 billion over the first 10 yrs, and 1.2 trillion in the next 10.

CBO only scores what's put in front of it. Garbage in, garbage out.

Do you have any clue about what assumptions were put in front of the CBO? The 6/10 gimmick? The Medicare cut gimmick? The doc fix gimmick? Yeah, I'm sure the bill scores great when the inputs are all fictitious.

The bill costs $17 billion in the first four years, and $923 billion for the following six. That's because the expensive parts don't kick in for the first four years, even though the taxes are imposed from day one. This is workable as long as we only get six years of benefits every decade. Anyone willing to bet that Congress is going to call for a four-year hiatus in benefits in 2020?

Look up the Doc Fix and the Medicare cuts on your own--it makes me sick just thinking about these lies.

Why can't the Dems just be honest about the cost? Why can't they be honest policymakers and say "Yeah, it's going to be costly as a motherfucker, but we think it's worth it"? Why? Because they know that only a tiny fraction of Americans would support it if they told the truth.

Why is it that I, a mother with a child with a preexisting condition, still can't get insurance?

Because it's insurance, not charity.

It's as if someone called GEICO and said "I just wrecked my car... can I buy insurance from you?" The caller isn't trying to buy insurance, but he's trying to get someone else to pay his expenses.

If the health insurer underwrites that mother, it has two choices: Increase everyone's premiums or set her premium at a level that will allow her to recompense the insurer for all the costs it undertakes. But if they do either of those, they'll still get screamed at. Apparently the only thing they could do to satisfy the left is cover everyone at prices that lose them money.

Why is this so difficult to understand? The health insurance industry is not particularly profitable--they're not making money hand over fist. You could eliminate the pay of every health insurance executive, cut their admin costs to the bone, and they'd still have to raise your premiums when an already sick person demands coverage. Why? Because actual medical costs are still rising--an unfortunate fact obscured by the HCR backers who have identified a convenient villain. They want you focused on the enemy, rather than the fact that this bill does nothing to contain rising costs

NewHam, have you considered some sort of support group for grieving wingnuts shut out of power? You seem to have unbalanced fears and aggression of the unknown. I just don't think commenting on blogs is very therapeutic dealing with your anxiety driven Krakatoa-like eruptions. What say you. I'm always here to help.

The most damning interview of his career so far. He blew this one big time and all the reporter did was ask him to answer a couple questions that a lot of Americans want answered. Then keep asking them, but never getting an answer. It was an American president at his worst. Dishonest and dismissive in a very ugly way.

He blew this one big time and all the reporter did was ask him to answer a couple questions that a lot of Americans want answered.

Obama was pissed because he thought the interview was going to be about what he thought of Michelle's Newsweek cover and his bracket picks. Obama hates ambush interviews. I'm surprised Baer isn't in Gitmo right now.

Hey garage, have you checked the body count from Obama's War on Terror recently? His continuing slaughter of civilians by unmanned drones must have you questioning your vote, no? Or did you always favor killing Muslims by remote control? So hard to keep track of you Libs.

Hey garage, have you checked the body count from Obama's War on Terror recently?

Yes. There seems to be a real spike from the previous 7 yrs. Especially leadership killings. In fact today we just learned that al qaeda is sending out SOS msgs pleading for help. I know this is supposed to hurt my feelings, or something, and this is all you can come up with.

Where has been the outrage over the last many decades over the manner by which bills are made and passed?

There was a lot more criticism from the press and outrage from the liberals that there is now.

Some of us fiscal conservatives were very outraged by Bush. I never much liked the guy and the congressional GOP were a bunch of hypocrites, so you'll get no defense of them from me.

The house Democrats recently made a big deal how they passed PayGo. Yet, they've yet to follow it. Fucking liars, just like the goddamn Republicans. There are a few Democrats and Republicans who are outraged by all this nonsense, but they are shouted and voted down by the corrupt megalomaniacs in charge.

(Before you ask what I'm doing about; I helped vote one of those RINOs out and put in a solid, fiscal conservative who is so far doing what he promised he would. Senator Hatch has heard the message loud and clear and is suddenly swinging to the right as is Bennett. Oh, and Utah balances its budget.)

Why? Because actual medical costs are still rising--an unfortunate fact obscured by the HCR backers who have identified a convenient villain.

It might interest some to know that rising medical costs are not confined to the US but is happening worldwide. The vaunted French system is facing the same thing as their costs are rising which is forcing them to raise taxes in addition to the co-pays that Jaques and Jaqueline have to fork over (and yes, they have a private insurance industry that picks up the portion of health care that the state doesn’t cover just like our Medicare).

The issue here is health care vs health insurance. I as a fit, strapping and devastatingly healthy individual can get away with a health insurance policy with a high deductible because outside of my annual physical, I require a lot of medical treatment. Someone who is chronically ill either through genetic misfortune or because of living a piss poor lifestyle doesn’t need insurance but rather a pre-paid health plan that the rest of society needs to pay for out of what earnings the Federal, State and local government hasn’t already taken.

Ann, frankly, I do not understand this controversy. Essentially, the House will be voting on two bills at the same time --the Senate bill and the amendments to it--instead of seriatim. Is that the gist of "deem and pass?" If so, this seems like a tempest in a teapot.

Also, I don't see how anyone challenging the law (if enacted) gets around the Marshall Fields decision (the so-called "enrolled bill" rule). This seems like much ado about nothing. For you to spend a long time on it rather than the merits or demerits of the underlying legislation is a bit odd.

Where has been the outrage over the last many decades over the manner by which bills are made and passed?

To the "but they did it first" crowd. Are you really serious? That may pass on the playground as an acceptable retort, but not among adults.

Grow up and focus on the issues at hand, today. In the past, I was a child. Today I am an adult. Are you? Then I was blind, now I can see. Can you?*

We can't change the past. We can, however, fight against the further economic destruction of our future. Why are you so willing to just give up and give in?

Every thinking person knows the bill is a piece of shit, or the Dems would've passed it easily. Instead, they themselves are ashamed of it, and are willing to resort to bribery and trickery to pass it; with the complete approval of our President.

Why is it acceptable to you that they are trying to force bad laws on us against our will?

Obama was pissed because he thought the interview was going to be about what he thought of Michelle's Newsweek cover and his bracket picks.

Ha!

Also, I was trying to find the real bracket on ESPN’s website last night and kept running into Obama stuff. I even clicked on something called, no lie, “real bracket” that was obama’s pics. (BTW, Down with Kansas! Go Kentucky. Or Duke. Or anybody in the SEC. Not particular).

This post certainly set the cat among the pigeons, both sets. Most professorial, pedagogically.

What surprises me -- negatives my long-held central assumption about the chap and his cabal, in fact -- is not so much the weight of Althouse's observation that they must be in trouble on this vote to go on Fox but the weight of the follow-on implication that they feel they had better care once this stinker passes, as they know it will.

They're not trying to sell passage. That they know is assured. They're trying to deflect/neutralize the fallout from passage.

Now, if they're trying to deflect/neutralize that fallout, it means they do in fact worry that they may not be able to enforce the stinker, that the fallout will overwhelm them. I have long assumed they believed they could ram up the nation whatever they wanted to ram, confident of being able to make it stick there.

This interview last night says I was wrong about that, they are in fact worried they cannot enforce it.

This means only one thing: they calculate not having enough firepower (read US Armed Forces) to suppress rebellion.

There was no obfuscation at all in this interview. It was about the after-passage environment, not the vote, which is assured, and the effort was to intimidate rebels into believing the cabal has firepower sufficient to overwhelm them in fact it does not.

But they wouldn't engage in intimidation unless they knew they didn't have the force necessary for victory in the task they know is coming, namely suppressing rebellion.

In other words, the interview was a bluff to buffalo rebels AFTER the vote on this stinker, which will succeed.

If someone got ambushed, the interviewer got ambushed, not the interviewee. However, the more likely reality is that the interviewer was assisting a message delivery from the platform the revels most likely would be tuned to: "In other words, rebels, the cabal controls this channel as well as the others. You ain't got a chance. See you in hell!"

Meta-message: we haven't got the firepower to stop you after we pass this stinker.

I see our dwindling liberal supporters are putting up a game attempt to defend this stinkburger bill. But I have to ask them, in their heart or heats do you think this will survive the first republican run house or senate session? Pelosi and Obama are admitting this is "the first step".How can you have a "second step" if half the country thinks its illegitimate and the party out of power will pledge to reppeal it as a campaign pledge?

Mr. Cook;by inviting the insurance companies to participate as if they were decent or honorable actors. They are not; they are swine, and we need to approach this issue with the assumption that they, as are the financial industries, are essentially criminal enterprises that must be held in check.

So I assume you are upset at their profits that didn't go "directly" to healthcare. I would also assume you're upset at the "profits" that doctors and hospitals made that didn't go to healthcare. (Doctors and hospitals combined consume over 50% of all healthcare dollars spent; i.e. the big target)

The six largest for-profit insurance companies made over 12 BILLION dollars last year. Impressive and horrific, right? Well considering that we spent well over 2 TRILLION dollars last year in healthcare, eliminating those horrible profits would cut national health care costs by about 1/2 of 1 percent. We'd still have a long way to go (33% less) to get close to the next highest spending country.

Or we could apply all of those "savings" to cover the uninsured. Unfortunately, assuming they would spend at the same rate as the rest of us (nearly $8000 per capita per year) we'd be able to cover about 1.5 million

Again lots more heavy lifting to do to get where we need to be. But hey, they're an easy target and its all for a good cause right?

"I as a fit, strapping and devastatingly healthy individual can get away with a health insurance policy with a high deductible"

That's fine, but for those who simply hope for the best without insurance, I was in the best shape of my life the day I found out I was gonna cost my insurance company about $500,000 over the next few years. One day the $60,000+ I had paid over decades of premiums was a bad deal. The next day I had won health insurance lottery. Some may think you have to get sick to win the insurance game. The way I see it, if you get and keep insurance, you win either way. If you get sick you're covered - if you don't, then you really can't call that losing. Best money I ever spent.

That's fine, but for those who simply hope for the best without insurance, I was in the best shape of my life the day I found out I was gonna cost my insurance company about $500,000 over the next few years. One day the $60,000+ I had paid over decades of premiums was a bad deal. The next day I had won health insurance lottery.

Yep and that is what insurance is for, to protect ourselves financially from the unexpected.

Here's the thing: I don't think anyone should be bankrupted because they got sick, or were cursed with some nasty ass chronic illness. Should there be some mechanism to protect people from this? Absolutely. But that's where it goes off the rails because it goes from protecting someone from serious illness or accident to covering an abortion, an annual physical, boob scan, or every visit to Dr. So&So and thats where I draw the line.

Oh and don't tell me that illegals won't be covered. They will simply because they can't be turned away from an ER (which is where they all go anyway) so in the end, we're still going to be paying for it so add another 10-15 million to the 30 million uninsured. I wonder if that figures in the CBO numbers.

Pelosi's team has been running proposed changes to the Senate Bill past the CBO in order to get better scores. Makes me wonder if those 12k new IRS agents are part of the design. If each new IRS agent is projected to bring in another $1M/year (as an example, tell me what you think is more likely) in taxes which otherwise would have gone uncollected, doesn't that mean $12B/year off the cost of the rest of the bill? I realize $120B over 10 years is petty cash to Obama, but the real prize, perhaps, are more Feds? Anyhow, the IRS agents in the bill appear to be added to reduce the cost of the rest of the bill. Nice sleight of hand.

BTW, if Deem and Pass were common usage, they'd have done it already. Do I understand correctly that in the past it was used only to move amendments out of committee which had not yet voted it out?

Holy crap. How much pancake makeup did they spackle on Obama before that interview? I tried to watch it, but the spine-tingles were too uncomfortable. Seriously, is he a zombie? It would explain why he's trying to kill us all.

If the Dem Party wants to regain the respect of this independent voter, they would admit they overreached with this bill at this time of economic crisis, and instead focus on job growth, and preventing the US credit rating from going down the toilet.

After a few years of real economic growth, a true bi-partisan health bill, that is not over-reaching, over-bloated and unreadable, should be passable. And the Dem party would get the credit for the win.

But this won't happen, because of the current Party leadership. They are people who seem to believe they are entitled to power at any cost, including bad laws that other members in their own party object to, and using whatever means necessary to get it. The moderates are seemingly outnumbered, and/or beholden to the Party leaders. I would gladly have them prove me wrong by shelving this bill.

And Bachmann just said yesterday Dennis Hastert would NEVER do something like this! And Mike Pence said this bill is probably unconstitutional. Then asked if he had ever done the same thing, said "yeah, sure".

Ok I will. For those of you who don't have insurance, it is a product that provides financial protection against unexpected losses. There. That was easy.

And exactly how would you protect people from going bankrupt (even with insurance) when they can't pay the tab?

Well I have said for a long time that we could have expanded a Medicare(esque) program to the uninsured by covering catastrophic coverage. This program would ensure that the chronically ill and those who can't afford insurance would not face financual ruin for catastrophic care. If you want an annual physical, routine doctor visit for a sinus infection or an abortion you can pay that yourself.

This program could easily be funded with a $.15 Federal tax on gasoline. That way everyone has to chip in, even those who will benefit from the program.

I'm all for helping people out Jeremy. I'm just opposed to half the country being exempt from the helping out part that's all.

One of the nice, unexpected, attributes of the ever evolving "health care" bill is the entrance of the Federal Govt. into the student loan business. Direct student loans. So, academics out there, be advised that it won't be long before your administrators are advising you that grade outcomes had best mirror racial demographics or the Feds will redline the school and you will be out of work. Think that your little tenure piece of paper will help you out? Think your liberal orthodoxy will insulate you? What about when the big bad wingnuts take change, what then? But, what the hell, this is one of the more understandable reasons for "health care."

What the Democrats are doing now has been done much more the Republicans, who did worse. Where was this obsession with process back when Republicans use iron fisted and illegal tactics to pass Medicare Part D, which was added to the deficit? ------Lessons from the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit voteHere are some things that happened on the night the GOP pushed the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit through the House of Representatives:

A 15-minute vote was scheduled, and at the end of 15 minutes, the Democrats had won. The Republican leadership froze the clock for three hours while they desperately whipped defectors. This had never been done before. The closest was a 15-minute extension in 1987 that then-congressman Dick Cheney called “the most arrogant, heavy-handed abuse of power I’ve ever seen in the 10 years that I’ve been here.”

Tom DeLay bribed Rep. Nick Smith to vote for the legislation, using the political future of Smith's son for leverage. DeLay was later reprimanded by the House Ethics Committee.

The leadership told Rep. Jim DeMint that they would cut off funding for his Senate race in South Carolina if he didn't vote for the bill.

The chief actuary of Medicare, Rick Foster, had scored the legislation as costing more than $500 billion. The Bush administration suppressed his report, in a move the Government Accounting Office later judged "illegal.”

Rep. Jo Ann Emerson, a "no" vote, spent the night "hiding on the Democratic side of the floor, crouching down to avoid eye contact with the Republican search team."

Rep. Butch Otter, who provided one of the final votes after hours of arm-twisting from the Republican leadership, said, “I thought there was a chance I would get sick on the floor.”

Thanks to Ezra Klein for this reminder. (Though he forgot to mention that Republicans also ordered the CSPAN cameras shut off!

"And exactly how would you protect people from going bankrupt (even with insurance) when they can't pay the tab?"

Exactly my question: how WILL we protect our people from going bankrupt since that's exactly what this bill will do to all of us.

"So you think half the country doesn't pay taxes, work or contribute to the economy?"

Yep, that's right. Half of us take more than they contribute and this bill will make it worse. Surprisingly though, nearly all those freeloadershave money for cell phones, big screen TV, cable, booze and drugs. Every single person I know who does not buy insurance has those life saving necessities.

I started buying insurance when I was still earning well below the official poverty line. It's called responsibility.

And for those who want to see how our costs stack up against other countries see here Its a pdf, see page 2.

Note how all OECD countries' healthcare costs are accelerating upward. So providing 100% coverage and/or 100% governmentally run healthcare doesn't by definition control costs. So even if we covered all, but did nothing else to address costs, I would expect us to continue as the leader of the pack

Bag O'Wind - "Exactly my question: how WILL we protect our people from going bankrupt since that's exactly what this bill will do to all of us."

And exactly how is this bill going to bankrupt YOU...or ME? You think if people are covered, versus using emergency rooms...that will somehow make life worse for YOU?(You and I are already paying for those who are no insured...unless you think the hospitals just eat the loss of revenue. Is that what you think?)

"Yep, that's right. Half of us take more than they contribute and this bill will make it worse."

How will it make it worse? You can say anything, but why not provide evidence of anything of the kind. Are you saying we will all have to pay more in taxes with health reform? Why?

Oh, and by "freeloaders" you must be referring to the poor and the minorities of America...who ALL own cell phones (now there's an expensive piece of technology...and BIG screen TV's (based on what?)...booze?...drugs? (Do you include the drugs Limbaugh was cramming into his fat mouth?)

What followed was one of the most extraordinary events in congressional history. The vote was kept open for almost three hours while the House Republican leadership brought massive pressure to bear on the handful of principled Republicans who had the nerve to put country ahead of party. The leadership even froze the C-SPAN cameras so that no one outside the House chamber could see what was going on.

Among those congressmen strenuously pressed to change their vote was Nick Smith, R-Mich., who later charged that several members of Congress attempted to virtually bribe him, by promising to ensure that his son got his seat when he retired if he voted for the drug bill. One of those members, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, was later admonished by the House Ethics Committee for going over the line in his efforts regarding Smith.

"Oh, and by "freeloaders" you must be referring to the poor and the minorities of America."

You can never keep your racist mind off people's skin color can you? I'm talking about people I know personally. Most white, but not all. They can afford insurance, they simply want to buy other stuff. It's that simple. In fact they generally don't pay for anything they don't have to, even if it's critical.

Alpha Liberal: Your "statistic" regarding bankruptcy is not correct. You made it up.

CBO estimates that the average annual family premium post the Health Care "reform" bill will be $12,500. That is the bad news. The good news is that the fine for not having insurance will be quite low, maxed at 2.5% of income for people above a certain level. So no real reason to get "insurance' as it will be available should you become ill. Pocket the difference. Liberals are extra good at math and marketplace incentives.

Michael - You can play with the numbers all you want but these are FACTS:

Last year an estimated 1.5 million Americans will declare bankruptcy. More than 60 percent of people who go bankrupt are actually capsized by medical bills.

Bankruptcies due to medical bills increased by nearly 50 percent in a six-year period, from 46 percent in 2001 to 62 percent in 2007, and most of those who filed for bankruptcy were middle-class, well-educated homeowners, according to a report that will be published in the August issue of The American Journal of Medicine.

Yours and many of the other arguments here are nothing more than anti-Obama right wing drivel.

*And you can bet your ass 99% of those here who are spewing forth...have insurance.

Jeremy, I spoke carelessly. Thanks for catching it. I meant that I understand that Deem and Pass was used by the Speakers to move amendments out of committee and into a bill before it has been voted out of committee.

Jeremy: I do have insurance. But after this bill passes I will not. I will give it up because I am not an idiot. I will save about 15,000 per year. If I get sick or any of my family get sick I will go buy the insurance. In the meantime I will pay the piddling little fine. Because when it becomes law that you cannot deny "insurance" to those who have a pre-existing conditions only a moron would pay for it beforehand. Oh, and I will cut loose all of my employees from their insurance as well since it will only cost me $750 per employee. Splendid bill in every way. For me. The employees will learn a bit about the real cost of insurance on their own.